Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
I used to think that too. Here's what changed my mind. [snip]
|
Yeah, however the Osprey book severely cuts out context for the Ceausescu regime, how it started and the changes it went through.
Initially Ceausescu was a reformer and the darling of the West in the Soviet Bloc. He was a popular leader who frequently bucked the Soviet line for domestic political and very real, practical economic reasons. However that changed. His domestic economic program failed miserably and was badly thought out. Like Stalin he had a habit of plonking down industrial complexes in places economics didn't suit but where he wanted a communist counter-balance to nationalist and intelligentsia forces (this would be his undoing when the workers came after him too). As he'd screwed over his relationship with the Soviets (under Brezhnev you can hardly blame him at this point) he went off looking to the Chinese for support.
Ceausescu became a big fan of Maoism and the Korean
Juche system (which I've recently found out massively predates Korean communism which surprised me). It was his affiliation with Mao that the Soviets, especially Brezhnev, disliked (for good reason as Mao was white-anting the USSR). This is when he transitioned from popular but frankly stupid reformer to President-For-Life.
However Mao died. Things changed. Both Albania and Romania started to realise that the PRC weren't the cornucopia of responsibility-free goodies they could be. Albania went its own way into a sort of hermit-kingdom but Romania had no options. The USSR could simply not buy Romanian oil during the oil glut. As a result Romania had a rapprochement with the USSR. Osprey ignores this.
Note also that a lot of people still remembered the "Old Ceausescu" and often gave him the benefit of the doubt. Like all revolutions if you ask anyone afterwards they'll all tell you they were opponents of the regime and it's frankly bollocks. The vast majority of populations simply try and sit out revolutions or only participate to a minor degree when everyone else is doing it.
The big problem in the T2K context is the background.
The West actually is invading. Romanians are going to be isolated if they buck the Soviet line. They simply aren't going to rise up during an existential war, and most importantly they are going to do nothing if the army doesn't help. It was the army and not the people that overthrew Ceausescu when it was so obvious that he's so alienated the people he was a severe liability. The three generals who did him in went on to be the first leaders of the republic. In this situation the army is either going to follow the USSR's lead or they're going to have an angry Red Army in Romania again and they simply aren't going to do that. In real history the USSR had already collapsed and had also shown in true Glasnost style it wasn't going to intervene in dissolutions (okay, Moldavia, but that was an actual literal rogue division).
However GDW wanted warfare everywhere for practical gaming reasons and thus had to have fighting everywhere. We can accept that and stick with it or go with a more practical what-if.
I think Romania would disintegrate but only to the degree Poland disintegrates; still Soviet but with tons of splinter factions and some foreign busybodies who rapidly become loathed by the locals.